After death did Gautama Buddha ceased to exist? Or does he still exist?

It seems that no matter how much I meditate, practice mindfulness, read dhamma books and attempt to follow the 8fold path etc it only takes one little thing to happen and I just instantly revert to very entrenched maladaptive, negative, and I suppose conditioned thoughts and behaviours.Then I feel lots of shame, hopelessness and guilt etc. how do I work with this and change myself for the better permanently? I've changed a little since I begun about 6 years ago but I'm impatient as life is going by very quickly, I'm getting older and I want to be happy and live a fulfilling life but I keep thinking, saying and doing things that are not conducive towards that. I don't have much hope that I'll ever make any lasting positive change. My brain seems to be wired to fail. How can buddhism help me with this conundrum?

According to Buddhism, Maitreya Buddha is a Buddha who will come some time in the future. Some sources say he will come hundreds of thousands of years from now, but the [Manimekalai](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manimekalai) , a 6th century Buddhist epic poem written in the language Tamil, seems to suggest an earlier timeframe. [Here](https://ia801406.us.archive.org/BookReader/BookReaderImages.php?zip=/20/items/manimekhalaiinit031176mbp/manimekhalaiinit031176mbp_tif.zip&file=manimekhalaiinit031176mbp_tif/manimekhalaiinit031176mbp_0184.tif&scale=8&rotate=0) is what chapter 12 of the Manimekalai says: > That dharma, people in this world do not know. But within the circuit of this universe, the devas understand it and at their request **the Deva will come down again to this world from the Tushita Heaven in the year 1616**. Then everyone in this world will feel impelled to practice the doctrine or mercy. My question is, what is this year "1616" that the Manimekalai identifies as the year when Maitreya Buddha will come? What calendar is it using? It's clearly not the Gregorian calendar, since that wasn't in vogue in 6th century India.

I am a (somewhat lackadaisical) follower of S.N. Goenka's meditation teachings. After a couple of 10-day retreats and reading some articles such as this: http://www.vridhamma.org/Why-Vedana-and-What-is-Vedana I'm still not sure how to regard sensations that at least in Western terms are not simple sensory input, but which also do not imply any attachment or revulsion — feelings like the ones above, or hunger, fatigue and so on. Are those vedana, and hence proper objects of mindfulness?

One of my friend don't accept Buddhism theory of soullessness.She is also buddhist.So my question is how can I explain the soullessness to her?

I have been following buddhist practices for little over three years now, and samadhi - or concentration, as you prefer - meditation was obviously part of my practice. As I was often taught from some of the books from which I learned meditation, I used samadhi meditation as a way of stabilizing my mind and of being able to do insight practices, beyond just getting more relaxed. One of my primary concerns after having exited the "bubble" of samadhi meditation after a long time is that I feel that some of the daily-life difficulties that I was somehow able to attenuate with concentration meditation are now reappearing, although with much less strength. More precisely, since when I needed to decrease the time for samadhi meditation I have been experiencing more mood swings, a little more anger, sometimes even a bit of depression, but at the same time I also felt more connected with the environment around me. Just a few months ago, when my samadhi meditation routine was more strong, I kind of avoided part of the suffering surrounding myself by making use of my concentration abilities. This left me wondering whether I should try to tackle some of my personal problems through insight or other practices in a more definitive way, rather than trying to avoid them by shifting my concentration to more tranquil places. I am not at all against consistently practicing concentration meditation, but sometimes it takes more time than I have; also, I think to have heard time ago the Buddha criticizing a routine composed of just samadhi meditation. Actually that seems a reasonable recollection, since the elaboration of the four noble truths and of the noble eightfold path from the Buddha seem to be oriented toward solving the problems of existence in a more definitive way, while, as I was taught, the jhanic states are only temporary and shouldn't be considered otherwise.

No religion teaches what Buddhism teaches at its core. A true Hindu or Christian or Muslim believes in God and soul. Can a Hindu or a Christian or a Muslim, who is not aware of Buddhist philosophy, get Nirvana? If yes, how? Otherwise, why doesn't everyone become a Buddhist to attain supreme bliss?

I seem to be making rather unusual choices in my life for unknown reasons. Like on a mere hunch or for some reason I gain interest in a strange topic. And later it turns out that these choices were exactly what I needed to have done to prepare for things that eventually happened. Is this addressed in the dharma? I make no claims about psychic powers or anything like that - I just wonder if it is merely coincidence.

Could anyone provide links and/or info about Buddhist monasteries in Sri Lanka that offer extended meditation retreats? For those who have taken part in such retreats, how was the experience? Would it be challenging in any way for me, an American, who has never been to Asia before, to travel there/adapt to the culture? Thank you

I have a person I know who, as far as I can say, has been intermittently long interested in Buddhism, but never made a big leap in her practice to achieve and cultivate bigger achievements. She is sufficiently versed in basic buddhist teachings but, as this person told me more than once, is afraid of reaching a "point of no-return" - that is, to not be able to enjoy and do all the things she was used to once she crosses a certain stage of the path. I tried to dispense some advices by offering details about my own experience and telling that, in reality, now I'm even *more* able to appreciate the same things I had before. This and a few other attempts never convinced that person (I never tried to *persuade* her, since I prefer that any person makes the choice that they most prefer) and my being aware that, to a certain extent, the progress in the path can be highly subjective, can only make things more difficult. Not being able to offer a more satisfactory answer to *Will I be able to enjoy life as much as I did before?*, what convincing reply would you offer based on your personal experience and, if relevant, buddhist scriptures? Please finally note that I do not demand that this, like many other persons, should follow the path to the fullest and most hardcore level. She may acquire a taste of what it is like practicing meditation, mindfulness and insight practices for a while and then settle at a level that she finds comfortable.

Usually our thoughts have a certain content or object, but in some way one can say that it is the person who has the thoughts. But is there also a mental thought involved of this thinker as a thought? How is this named in Buddhism? Is that 'ego', also as a thought possible? I hope it is clear what I mean....

One important thing that Hindus and Buddhists agree on is the law of Karma. That is, there are certain actions which will lead a person to have a positive experience in future, either in this life or the next, and there are other actions which will lead a person to have a negative experience in future. And Hindus and Buddhists also agree that ultimately the goal of life is not to just do good Karmas so you can have positive experiences in future, but rather to break out of he whole cycle of Karmas and their consequences. Buddhists believe that this can be done through the Eightfold Path, and Hindus believe in other means like knowledge of the supreme being. But my question is about what determines good Karmas and bad Karmas. Hindus believe that the Vedas (and texts derived from them) tell us exactly what actions constitute good Karma and what actions constitute bad Karma. But Buddhists reject the Vedas, so my question is, how do Buddhists determine what actions are good Karmas and what actions are bad Karmas? Do Buddhist scriptures discuss how to determine this? Note that I don't think the answer is "The Eightfold Path", because that's about what's required to break the cycle of Karma and consequence, whereas my question is about what's required to get positive experiences through the law of Karma. Also, on a side note, do Buddhists simply classify Karmas into good or bad, or do they subdivide these categories further? Because Hindus believe in a more fine-grained system where different kinds of good Karmas produce different kinds of positive experience.

Why didn't the Buddha, who knew there were 31 realms of existence, not talk about the roundness of the earth and planets?

2 years ago, I was meditating for about 2 hours a day and was rapidly transitioning to a higher vibration when all of the sudden, I was slammed back by a force of energy back into my chair. Since then I havent been able to get as deep into meditation as I did before then. Im not sure what happened, but feel some kind of a block happened. Has anyone else experienced this or know what happened?

The precept of killing is a great baseline. Very clear: if you kill something with intention, you break the precept. The factors I can remember in the kammic disecction of the matter are: the kammic weight of the one being killed, the intention of killing (and any coupling intents), the actual action, whether or not it succeeds, if, any, regret after the action, and maybe a few more factors. Giving each a realistic weight depending on the full situation will give you an average estimate of how bad it is. The thing is that the actual action is very clear with killing no matter how obscure the situation. With precepts like stealing, lying, or practices like wrong speech there isn't really a meter to hold yourself to. I've asked around on reddit and even here before but I haven't had a proper, well-developed answer to this. Some answers, particularly for right speech focus on following the heart or judging based on emotions, but that is the opposite of a discerning judgment and many of us follow our subtle judgement to worse kamma, not better. A meter of 'that which is not freely given' is pretty good but refuted by the sutta that speaks of 'stealing' a flower's smell. Other answers focus on a middle-ground, but these do not address the right course of action in situations where property becomes non-physical, or ownership of property splits, or other complex situations not faced during the Buddha's time. At the end of the day, there is definitely a right answer to this question, and it's important to know it for this high-speed age. You need to know this before you find yourself in such a situation because the decision has to be made on the spot. The answer exists because to a Buddha's range, there is an absolute understanding of whether an appropriation of property is stealing or not. This absolute knowledge, assuming it is not the result of direct kammic vision, can be practiced by normal people too. Edit: For a precept like stealing, ownership is arbitrary and can't be properly defined. Abusive speech is arbitrary and again changes from person to person. What might be a violation of right speech to one person isn't to another. Lying is pretty objective, but also has its' issues in getting proper communication across. In right speech, abusive speech is subjective: some consider certain words abusive, so if you speak to them in such a manner it won't be right speech. Others might not, and then there should be no violation of right speech in that situation even though everything you do is the same. So how do you find that line of practice where you can say, "I am properly keeping this or that precept, without worrying about self corruption?"

I recently encounted a situation where some comic fans in my country gathered up and had a Comic Con and it was worth their effort on making their own costumes. They have spend a lot of their time and dedication to represent their fictional characters. After the event was over I saw certain low minded individuals have used certain pictures of the cosplayers and have insulted them in vrry bad ways (memes and some relate to nudity) and it went viral. Some of those cosplayers were pretty depressed after that and all. And the other organizers and them defended them and now it has gone viral all over the world and everyone else is supporting. This is the scenario I encountered. My question is what are the karmic and other type of consequences of insulting a person's character according to the Pali Canon? Can I have references to them? -Metta

Many religions claim we came to this earth on a mission, everyone has a different mission, a specific reason to be here. In Buddhism I couldn't find anything like that, the "mission" would be the same for every one: Become an Arahant and scape samsara. There is nothing we should achieve here, except from that. Is that a fair statement? Does anyone know a sutta, speech or book related to Buddhism that states otherwise? That we do have a specific mission on this planet?

In every guided meditation or in the books I've read on meditation, I've been told to observe and hold sustained awareness towards the the 'meditation object', that is my breathing. When I do that, though, I stop breathing automatically and instead have to control my breaths. Can someone explain to me what's going on? Is this okay? Or is there a way I can observe my breath whilst automatically breathing?

I am a Sri Lankan Buddhist looking for help .. Our child is very sick and doctors have said any help is difficult to be given at this time for her or operated on. I would like to ask for information on the best vow/Baare to do for a child's future health and safety and to cure any problems, which deities would be best to ask for protection or some ritual that is undertaken to be continued for her safety and things like that? (at the Temple of the Tooth relic preferably as we will be visiting this month).. Any help is gratefully accepted.

As per my understanding when a person dies his aggregates dissolve(his self dissolves) and if the dead person has any cravings,clinging left for the existence then he is reborn(aggregates reassemble). Craving or clinging is personal. A person craves or clings. But death causes the dissolution of self. So I am unable to understand who clings or craves after death? If we the take the simile of lamp then my question would be: who passes the flame from one lamp to another ? My questions are :how does the clinging or craving remain when there is no person,immediately after death, to crave or cling? What remains after the dissolution of five aggregates ?